From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Thu Dec 12 13:28:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 12 Dec 2002 21:28:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 61300 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 21:28:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Dec 2002 21:28:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 21:28:07 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18MasJ-0003z5-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:28:07 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Mas9-0003yR-00; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:27:57 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:27:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Mas4-0003yI-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:27:52 -0800 Received: (qmail 12769 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 21:27:46 -0000 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 21:27:46 -0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:33:00 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: bridling hostility (was: RE: Re: the ethics of the HTML content meta tag Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org To: robin@bilkent.edu.tr In-Reply-To: <3DF8A82A.5060907@bilkent.edu.tr> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3503 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Steven Belknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 09:15 AM, Robin Turner wrote: > And Rosta wrote: >> Jordan: >>> I don't think *anyone* has supported your "'Loglan' is the english >>> word for 'lojban'" crap (excepting you). >>> >>> Anyway; if you really want to abuse meta tags so badly, how about >>> you put up your own lojban site? No one is stopping you... >> >> Steven is advocating what he thinks is best for Lojban, and best for >> official >> LLG policy, not what he thinks is best for him. He is clearly not >> speaking >> out of a yen to abuse meta tags. The list would be a happier place if >> you >> respected that his intentions are honourable, and replied simply that >> "your idea has been considered inappropriate for the following >> reasons... >> and this is why it hasn't won support". >> >> I have a sense that the atmosphere of the list is a little less >> collegial >> than it used to be, and that insults and adhominems are becoming more >> common. >> > > It was pretty vituperous about six years ago, if I remember rightly. > There were just fewer people around to vituperate, and the > vituperations > tended to be about more obscure issues. > > I agree that a little more politeness is in order. Perhaps we could > agree that all insulting messages should be posted in Lojban. If > nothing else it would be more amusing: > > le do mamta cu nalrebysmacu .ije le do patfu se steci le panci pei > jbari > .i mi carna gi'e sputu fo do > > (sorry, I'm not up to coining a lujvo/fu'ivla for "elderberry" at the > moment, nor to rendering "in your general direction") > > robin.tr LOL mi nelci le la robin bradi sidbo